Creating A Social Media Based Continuous Interaction Platform For The Design Studio

Kutay Guler, Dumlupinar University, Turkey

The Asian Conference on Technology, Information & Society

Official Conference Proceedings 2014 Abstract Social Media offers enticing pedagogic opportunities. Unlike the users of Learning Management Systems (LMSs) or Personal Learning Environments (PLEs), the Social Media user has the ability to create a profile and form interactions with his/her contacts which have real life value and impact. In a learning context, considering the popularity of Social Media, user familiarity with the interface and the workflow can also be advantageous. A possible pedagogic implementation of social media could be a continuous interaction platform for the contemporary design studio which might help improve issues such as; efficiency of studio critiques, peer interaction, and homogeneous distribution of course load throughout the semester. In this study the effectiveness of traditional and social media based design studio courses are investigated and compared. The sample population involved 78 4th year Graphic Design students enrolled in “Exhibiting and Exhibition Graphics” course, which was divided into a treatment and a control group each consisting 39 individuals. For the treatment group, the studio process was performed solely on social media and all interactions were kept strictly online. For the control group a standard studio process was employed. The evaluation of the aforementioned two processes was made both from the students’ point of view – where students’ opinions and experiences were compared, and from the instructors’ point of view – where a panel evaluation of the submitted works were compared. According to findings the implementation of social media in design studios and the future of the concept are discussed. Keywords – Social Media, Design Studio, Studio Critiques, Web 2.0, Facebook

iafor The International Academic Forum

www.iafor.org

Introduction Social media is usually defined through the ideological and technological foundation introduced by Web 2.0. Contrary to the static, non-participatory and limited environment of Web 1.0, Web 2.0 provided an evolving, participatory and content-rich platform (Goodchild, 2007; O’Reilly, 2005; 2007; Özata, 2013; Singh, 2010; Stark, 2006). The Bulletin Board Systems from the 1980s and instant messaging services of the previous era, such as IRC, ICQ and Microsoft Messenger are considered as the precursors to social media and networking (Özünlü, 2012). Compared to the previous installment, Web 2.0 users aren’t passive receptors of information anymore but are an active part of content creation. The content can be accessed independent of time and place, can be shared with larger audiences and it can be enriched with contribution from other users (Anklam, 2009; Boyd, 2012; Komito and Bates, 2009; McLoughlin and Lee, 2007; Robinson, 2007).Some prominent features of Social Media are: (1)the user can create a personal profile that is relatable for other users, (2) the user can form connections through following and befriending other users while starting open or private conversations, (3) the content can be shared, searched and referred back to independent of time and place(Boyd and Ellison, 2007; Conole and Culver, 2010).Additionally, efficient and effective communication features, satisfying curiosity about others, gaining popularity and forming/improving new relationships are listed as reasons for the prevalence of social media use amongst the young (Urista, Dong and Day, 2009). Social media has become a widely researched subject especially in the field of education, as it is ubiquitous, accessible, responsive and continuously evolving. Academic studies on social media often focus on creating profiles, sharing material, leaving comments and forming friend/contact lists (Mazmani and Usluel, 2010).This study seeks to contribute to the growing body of research by proposing a framework for implementing and evaluating social media in design studio learning. The differences between the traditional design studio learning and a social media based design studio learning are investigated by contrasting student performances and opinions. Through the analysis of data, this study aims to determine whether the quality of learning and social interaction in the design studio environment changes depending on the learning platform. This study will also provide an initial groundwork for future studies, especially in the field of design. Design Studio and Online Education Design studio is a process during which learning occurs while all the skills and knowledge acquired by the student is focused on solving a design problem over a period of time. Design studios are particularly important in design education as they provide a simulation of the actual professional environment (Brusasco, 2000). The learning process in the design studio can be defined as a series of cyclical iterations based on a continuous dialogue between the instructor and the student, through which the given design problem is solved (Schön, 1987; Kurt, 2009)(Figure 1). Raw information is rarely provided during the design studio process, rather the student is expected to generate knowledge with the guidance of the instructor. This statement implies that the course of creating a solution is as important as the final product.

Critiques form the foundation of learning in the design studio. Critiques provide instructor and peer input that will improve the design solution that is being developed by the student. Critiques will lead to revisions, many times during the course of the design studio. There are several ways to receive critiques. Besides desk critiques with the instructor, students can also receive critiques during presentations, pin-ups, midterm juries, and final juries from their peers and guest designers/instructors. Usually the process is open and social, students can spectate their peers during critiques and assess their own progress by comparison. The widely adopted traditional design studio mechanic has several well-documented shortcomings. Usually social interaction is limited to class hours during which the instructor is expected to provide desk critiques for 12 students in one 4 hour session on average (Tate and Osborne, 2013). Cochrane and Bateman (2010) report that students often fail to track and document their progress and have difficulty in remembering how they achieved a particular solution. This is due to the fact that the concept of design studio is foreign to the students whom haven't encountered a similar learning process before. As a result adaptation problems sometimes even extend to final years of education. Besides inadequate class hours and adaptation problems, workload distribution is also skewed. Kurt (2009) reports that in a typical traditional design studio usually 80% of the work is finished during the 10% of the duration of the course. Lastly presentations, pin-ups, juries and even desk critiques might become emotionally overwhelming and affect learning negatively as factors such as shame and fear come into the equation in such social circumstances (Utaberta, et al., 2011).

Figure 1. Interactions in a design studio environment. Computer mediated communication stands out as an alternative to the social interactions of the traditional design studio environment. The positive and negative aspects of computer mediated communication has been scrutinized in numerous academic research (Rheingold, 1994; Jones, 1997; Robins and Webster, 1999). It is often argued that virtual communication experience is a simplified version of real-life social interaction. However, virtual communication experience do have real-life propagation and social consequences (Bayraktutan, 2013). In design studio context it can be argued that face to face social interaction during presentations, pin-ups,

critiques and juries is a more ideal situation compared to virtual communication experience where signifiers such as facial expressions, body language, tone of voice or the rhythm of speech are missing. Even though video cameras and conferencing options may be used as supporting tools, the quality of communication during a real-life interaction is hard to achieve (Hoyt, 2000). However the quality communication is a trade off for a communication environment without the limitations of time and space. Martin (2001) argues that subjects starts to compensate for the missing traits of communication by being more descriptive and actively seeking understanding. It can be argued that in a learning environment such behavior might be a positive. Cochrane and Bateman (2010) claim that increased amount of communication environment that is not bound by time and space limitations creates a unique situation for an improved learning environment. Virtual communication experience also creates an opportunity for mobility. Considering the shortcomings of the traditional design studio environment and possible benefits of a computer mediated alternative, a continuous interaction platform is proposed in this study. The ability to provide unlimited communication and archival capabilities would be the best option for a host (Dickey, 2007; Jonassen, 1999). Social networking services proved to be the better host for the proposed continuous interaction platform as they provided a familiar interface for users, frequency of visits and interactions, profile creation and real-life social impact, easy system management and minimal downtime. Learning Management Systems (LMS) such as Adobe Connect, Blackboard or Moodle weren't considered as they were expensive, hard to manage/maintain, did not provide similar communication possibilities as social networking services, which was of utmost importance (Tu and Isaacs, 2000). Additionally form LMSs, limited access and limited mobility, unfamiliarity with the interface and dynamics of utilization created a risk of affecting learner performance negatively (Uden, 2007; McLaughlin et al., 2008). In order to implement the continuous interaction platform, a private group was created on the social networking service Facebook. Among all social networking services Facebook was chosen as it was widespread, familiar, functional and reliable; meeting the previously mentioned host requirements. The prevalence and familiarity of the host system shortens the time period spent on orientation and adaptation. Additionally the Facebook app on smart phones enables the user to have truly continuous social interaction, as the user gets a continuous stream of notifications. Besides its advantages as the host, one major limitation is Facebook isn't designed for any educational process in mind and does not provide tools that focus on learning. Additionally, there is a continuous stream of events, media items, suggestions and advertisement acting as distractions. As Kaplan and Haenlein (2010) emphasized it was necessary to create guidelines and limitations while working with social media. The Experiment and Procedure In order to evaluate the proposed continuous interaction platform an experiment was devised involving 75 fourth year graphic design students. The sample population was divided into a treatment group of 40 students who experienced design studio on the continuous interaction platform and a control group of 35 students who experienced a traditional design studio environment. Due to very specific sampling requirements, purposive sampling was used for this qualitative study (Given 2008; Salkind 2006).

Sample population's grade point average (GPA) indicated that, members of both groups have achieved equivalent academic success on average. The sample population was required to be able to understand basic spatial relationships, basic ergonomics and basic visitor dynamics in order to solve the design problem presented in the experiment. These basic skills were acquired by the sample population during the elective Space and Exhibition Design course in the previous semester. Besides the general requirements the treatment group was required to have a familiarity as a user with the social networking service Facebook. Both groups were expected to receive critiques, share course related material, and actively participate in the ongoing discussion in their respective learning environments. Students were expected to receive at least three critiques throughout the duration of the course and were made aware of the fact that their cumulative contribution would affect their grading. The design problem to be solved was designing an advertising and distribution stand for a selected periodical on a 5.25 x 3.0 meter area with a possible depth of 0.75 meters (Figure 2). There was a 2.0 x 3.0 x 0.5 meter niche on the surface of the given geometry which the student could move around, divide, and re-shape while keeping the ratio between positive and negative space. Students were expected to submit a single A2 paper at the end of the course showing a front view, a perspective view, measurements, and notes on concept and functionality. Students were given a template for the submission to minimize missing information as the evaluators of the project would be foreign to individual projects. Each submission was evaluated by three evaluators, all of whom had previously taught and practiced exhibition design. The evaluators were requested to grade the submissions according to quality of conceptualization/form, functionality/ergonomics, originality/creativity, and visuals/presentation on a 10 point scale.

Figure 2. Top and perspective views of the given geometry.

The project was announced on the 21st of February 2014. Frameworks of interaction, communication, contribution and submission were explained in detail and a Q&A session followed. In addition there was a 4 day orientation period for the treatment group. The course of the project took 6 weeks and ended on the 10th of April 2014. The interactions of the treatment group was limited to strictly on Facebook whereas the control group attended a weekly 4 hour traditional design studio session. There were two important limitations to this study. Due to initial connection problems some students failed to maintain a continuous access to Facebook group. These students have expressed that connection problems affected their performance and adaptation process. Second important limitation was the scale of the given design problem. Compared to 4th year design studio courses in other programs such as architecture and interior architecture, not only the overall scale of the project was small but also submission requirements were limited. This was to ensure that the online communication process while enabling the collection of more precise and relevant data. Analysis and Discussion The treatment and the control groups were compared using two distinct data sets. These data sets were: student activities throughout the course of the project and evaluation data of student submissions. The data didn't conform to normal distribution. Therefore 6 different non-parametric tests that are alternatives for the independent t-test were utilized (Wald-Wolfowitz Runs Test, Median Test, Mann-Whitney U Test, Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test, Kruskal-Wallis Test, and Jonckheere-Terpstra Test for Ordered Alternatives). Although all tests were pointing to same results, Mann-Whitney U test was employed as this test demonstrated a consistency with results. Even though homogeneity tests couldn't be performed on the data, the student activity graphs shows parallels between both groups (Table 1, Figure 3). The density of activities for the treatment group suggests that the orientation and adaptation period was fairly short, implying that the treatment group has understood the dynamics of interaction and started acting accordingly in a short time. This might be due to the familiarity with Facebook interface. The graph shows that the treatment group has generated considerably more activity, however it should be noted that critiques sessions were longer for the control group. Considering this was the only course conducted over social media for the treatment group, it should also be noted that students' focus might shift and the amount of activity might decrease in case of additional courses conducted on Facebook. When the contours created by activities from both groups are examined it can be seen that the density of activities increase and decrease similarly. For instance during the first week there was an increase in activities for both groups but during the second week activities diminished for both groups. Again there was a rise of activities on the third week again diminishing during the 4th week, which is the midterm week for the semester. This indicate that using the online continuous interaction platform won't change studying habits and dispersion of workload, contrary to expectation.

Student submissions were graded in four categories conceptualization/form, functionality/ergonomics, originality/creativity, and visuals/presentation over a 10 point scale. The results of analysis of each category and overall success are provided below (Table 2). In terms of general success there is a significant difference between the treatment and the control group suggesting that the perks provided by the continuous interaction platform such as ease of communication, high exposure to peer progress, ease of archiving and backtracking and freedom from time/space limitations. Also when comparisons between each category reveals that, there was a meaningful difference between the treatment and the control group in conceptualization/form and functionality/ergonomics categories, however there was no significant difference between both groups in originality/creativity and visuals/presentation categories.

23  -­‐Feb  -­‐  Sunday

24  -­‐  Feb  -­‐  Monday

25  -­‐  Feb  -­‐  Tuesday

26  -­‐  Feb  -­‐  Wed

27  -­‐Feb  -­‐  2014

28  -­‐  Feb  -­‐  2014

01  -­‐  March  -­‐  2014

02  -­‐  March-­‐  2014

03  -­‐  March  -­‐  2014

04  -­‐  March  -­‐  2014

05  -­‐  March  -­‐  2014

06  -­‐  March  -­‐  2014

07  -­‐  March  -­‐  2014

08  -­‐  March  -­‐  2014

09  -­‐  March  -­‐  2014

10  -­‐  March  -­‐  2014

11  -­‐  March  -­‐  2014

12  -­‐  March  -­‐  2014

13  -­‐  March  -­‐  2014

14  -­‐  March  -­‐  2014

15  -­‐  March  -­‐  2014

16  -­‐  March  -­‐  2014

17  -­‐  March  -­‐  2014

18  -­‐  March  -­‐  2014

19  -­‐  March  -­‐  2014

20  -­‐  March  -­‐  2014

21  -­‐  March-­‐  2014

22  -­‐  March  -­‐  2014

23  -­‐  March  -­‐  2014

24  -­‐  March  -­‐  2014

25  -­‐  March  -­‐  2014

26  -­‐  March  -­‐  2014

27  -­‐  March  -­‐  2014

28  -­‐  March  -­‐  2014

29  -­‐  March  -­‐  2014

30  -­‐  March  -­‐  2014

31  -­‐  March  -­‐  2014

01  -­‐  April  -­‐  2014

02  -­‐  April  -­‐  2014

03  -­‐  April  -­‐  2014

04  -­‐  April  -­‐  2014

05  -­‐  April  -­‐  2014

06  -­‐  April  -­‐  2014

07  -­‐  April  -­‐  2014

08  -­‐  April  -­‐  2014

09  -­‐  April  -­‐  2014

10  -­‐  April  -­‐  2014

Treatment

Table  1.  Student  activity  table.

Share19

2927

2013

01

21

16

165

108

23

75

51

54

23

82

10

24

02

03

10

01

63

56

511

2816

299Com

ment

521

3332

224

13

16

2455

3233

3415

745

5529

1168

309

437

183

04

152

70

40

50

018

2723

4319

3367

52956

Like114

194237

274124

214

3217

10110

320138

223161

9561

241201

9950

220157

4365

23770

260

4988

153

088

2410

022

105127

139181

104279

572249

5626

Treatment

Control

Critiques5

20

01

118

20

00

04

161

00

10

06

00

00

00

41

00

00

024

20

01

03

092

Attendance30

00

00

00

220

00

00

028

00

00

00

160

00

00

018

00

00

00

280

00

00

00

142

Control

Figure  3.  Student  activity  graph.

19

2927

20

13

01

21

1

6

16

5

108

23

75

5

1

54

23

8

21

02

4

02

03

10

01

63

56

5

11

28

16

5

21

3332

22

41

31

6

24

55

3233

34

15

7

45

55

29

11

68

30

9

4

37

18

30

4

15

2

7

0

4

0

5

00

18

27

23

43

19

33

67

52

52

00

11

18

20

00

0

4

16

10

01

00

6

00

00

00

41

00

00

0

24

20

01

03

0

30

00

00

00

22

00

00

00

28

00

00

00

16

00

00

00

18

00

00

00

28

00

00

00

0

12

34

56

78

910

1112

1314

1516

1718

1920

2122

2324

2526

2728

2930

3132

3334

3536

3738

3940

4142

4344

4546

47

ShareCom

ment

AttendanceCritique

Log.  (Share)Log.  (Com

ment)

Table 2. Analysis of results for each category.

Analysis Category Sig. Value

Overall Success 0.000

Conceptualization/Form 0.003

Functionality/Ergonomics 0.013

Originality/Creativity 0.072

Visuals/Presentation 0.069 The conceptualization/form category signifies the ability of student to analyze, understand and implement visual features of the selected periodical, reflecting visual cues while creating a coherent whole. The significant difference between the treatment and the control group might be a result of the access available to conceptualization processes of peers and the judgment free environment for analysis. The functionality/ergonomics category signifies the ability of student to provide functionality that is also ergonomic for given requirements. There is a significant difference between the treatment and control group in this second category. This might be due to the archiving and backtracking functionality that is built into the proposed continuous interaction platform. Also it should be considered that during the study session students had complete access to search engines unlike the traditional design studio environment. Treatment group could refer to professional examples and peers' solutions whereas the control group had limited access to such data. On the other hand, there was no significant difference between the treatment and contol group for the originality/creativity category which focused on the originality of conceptual, formal and functional solutions proposed by the student. The lack of significant difference might imply that contrary to expectations, that is increased peer plagiarism would be encountered on the continuous interaction platform, the design solutions provided by students were sufficiently varied and original across the board. The visuals/presentation category was an assessment of the skills for preparing visuals and presentations. The lack of significant difference between the treatment and the control group for this category might be a result of the fact that the skills that are required for this category weren't addressed throughout this course. Also shared submission visuals failed to stimulate inspiration and a significant difference between groups. Conclusions Findings of this study suggests that implementing a social media based continuous interaction platform for design studio courses had created a positive impact on students' overall performance. It should be noted that the scale and the scope of the given design problem and submission requirements were modest, therefore current functionality of Facebook sufficiently supported the proposed continuous interaction platform. However, a larger scale and scope might require new tools and a new interaction framework. An alternative to the proposed continuous interaction platform could be a hybrid process, involving traditional sessions complemented with online

sessions for which there are several successful implementations, but it should also be considered that a hybrid approach might also cause the student to focus on a single platform while not benefiting from the other (English and Duncan-Howell, 2008; Longbottom, 2008; Tate and Osborne, 2013). Another improvement for the continuous interaction platform might be an open group approach. Anybody outside of the class roster can access and contribute to the discussion. However it should also be noted that open groups might cause increased levels of social discomfort, indifference towards interaction and pedagogical lurking (Kreijns et. al., 2007). Another point of concern for a continuous interaction platforms is the possible extensity of social media use in learning in the future. Although learning process is manageable with a single course, students might struggle to maintain focus with several courses on social media platforms. In conclusion the findings of this study complements the growing body of research on the use of social media in learning environments. Although existing research on the subject have provided a solid foundation for this particular research, a complete implementation of social media learning, especially in the field of design education would require further research focusing on learning scenarios of differing context and scales. As the advantages and disadvantages of social media implementation in learning becomes clearer, it can only be expected that social media would become an intricate part of education with added features and tools specific for the task.

References Anklam, P. (2009). Ten Years of Network. The Learning Organization, 16(6), 415-

426. Bayraktutan, G. (2013). Sosyal Medyada Etkileşim in (Öztürk, M.C. Editor). Dijital İletişim ve Yeni Medya (s. 100-119). Eskişehir/Turkey: Anadolu University Press.

Boyd, D.M. and Ellison, N.B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), s. 1-?

Boyd. D. (2012). Participating in the Always-On Lifestyle in The Social Media Reader (s. 71-76)(Ed: M. Mandiberg). New York: New York University Press.

Brusasco, P.L., Caneparo, L., Carrara, G., Fioravanti, A., Novembri, G. ve Zorgno A.M. (2000). Computer Supported Design Studio. Automation in Construction, 9, s. 393-408.

Cochrane, T., and Bateman, R. (2010). Smartphones Give You Wings: Pedagogical affordance of mobile web 2.0. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 26(1), 1-14.

Conole, G. and Culver, J. (2010). The Design of Cloudworks: Applying Social Networking Practice to Foster the Exhchange of Learning and Teaching Ideas and Designs. Computers & Education. 54, s. 679-692.

Dickey M.D. (2007). Teaching in 3D: Pedagogical affordances and constraints of 3D virtual worlds for synchronous distance education, Distance Education, 24, 105-121.

Given, L. M. 2008. The Sage Encyclopedia of Qualitative Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Goodchild, M.F. (2007). Citizens as Voluntary Sensors: Spatial Data Infrastructure in the World of Web 2.0. International Journal of Spatial Data Infrastructures Research Vol 2, s. 24-32.

English, R., and Duncan-Howell, J. (2008). Facebook Goes to College: Using social networking tools to support students undertaking teaching practicum. Merlot Journal of Online Learning and Teaching, 4, p. 596- 601. Retrieved 23/03/11

Hoyt B. (2000). Techniques to manage participation and contribution of team members in virtual teams. WebNet Journal, 2, 16-20.

Jonassen D.H. (1999). Designing constructivist learning environments, (Reigeluth C.M. editor), Instructional design theories and models, Mahwah, NJ, Erlbaum Associates, 215-239.

Jones, S. (1997). Virtual Culture. London: Sage. Kaplan, A.M. and Haenlein, M. (2010). Users of the world, unite! The challenges and

opportunities of social media. Business Horizons 53, s. 59-68. Komito, L. and Bates, J. (2009). Virtually Local: Social Media and Community

Among Polish Nationals in Dublin. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 61(3), 232-244.

Kreijns, K., Kirschner, P. A., Wim, J., and van Buuren, H. (2007). Measuring perceived sociability of computer-supported collaborative learning environments. Computers & Education, 49(2), 176–192.

Kurt S. (2009). An Analytic Study on the Traditional Studio Environments and the Use of Constructivist Studio in the Architectural Design Education. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 11, p. 401-408.

Longbottom, C. (2008). Pilot study for integrated blended learning in a first year studio design program, STP. Retrieved 20/04/2011

Martin J. R., Ed. (2001). Language, register and genre: Analysing English in a global context. London, Routledge.

Mazmani S.G. and Usluel, Y.K. (2010). Modeling Educational Usage of Facebook. Computers & Education 54, s. 444-453.

McLoughlin, C., and Lee, M. J. W. (2007). Social software and participatory learning: pedagogical choices with technology affordances in theWeb 2.0 era. Paper presented at the Ascilite, Singapore.

McLaughlin, Patricia and Mills, Anthony (2008), Where shall the future student learn? Student expectations of university facilities for teaching and learning, in Proceedings of the 17th Annual Teaching and Learning Forum, [Curtin University], [Perth, W.A.], pp. 1-9.

O’Reilly, T., (2005), O’Reilly — What Is Web 2.0, retrieved in 15/4/2011, from http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/a/oreilly/tim/news/2005/09/30/what-is-web-20.html.

O’Reilly, T., (2007), What Is Web 2.0: Design Patterns and A Business Models for the Next Generation of Software, retrieved in 15/02/2011 http://mpra.ub.unimuenchen.de/4578/1/MPRA_paper_457

Özata, F.Z. (2013). Sosyal Medya Platformları. in Öztürk, M.C. (Ed.). Dijital İletişim ve Yeni Medya (s. 76-98). Eskişehir/Turkey: Anadolu University Publishing

Özünlü, S. (2012). Social Media As a Consumer Socialization Agent for Adolescents and Adolescents’ Purchase Intention Between the Ages of 11-15. Unpublished Master’s Thesis. İzmir: Yeditepe University.

Rheingold, H. (2000) The virtual community. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Robins, K. and Webster, F. (1999). Times of the Technoculture. London: Routledge. Robinson, J. E.(2007). A Study of Social Media Marketing In North Carolina Special

Libraries. Unpublished Master’s Thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, U.S.A.

Salkind, N. J. 2006. Exploring Research. New Jersey: Pearson Education International.

Schön, D.A. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Singh, B. (2010), Difference Between Web 1.0, Web 2.0, & Web 3.0 - With Examples, Retrieved 30/5/14 http://ezinearticles.com/?Difference-Between-Web-1.0,-Web-2.0,-and-Web-3.0---With-Examples&id=3683790.

Stark, E. (2006) “Free Culture and the Internet: A New Semiotic Democracy” openDemocracy.net, Retrieved 20/6/2014 http://opendemocracy.net/arts-commons/semiotic_3662.js

Tate, D. and Osborne, L. (2013). Facebook: A 24 Hour Studio Environment for Contemporary Architectural Education. [Working Paper] (Unpublished). retrieved 12/01/2014 http://eprints.qut.edu.au/59549/

Tu, C. H., and Isaacs, M. (2002). An examination of social presence to increase interaction in online classes. American Journal of Distance Education, 16(3), 131–150.

Uden, L. (2007). Activity theory for designing mobile learning. International Journal of MobileLearning and Organisation, 1(1), 81-102.

Urista, M. A., Q. Dong and K. D. Day. (2009). Explaining Why Young Adults Use MySpace and Facebook Through Uses and Gratifications Theory. Human Communication, A Publication of the Pacific and Asian Communication Association. Vol. 12, No. 2, pp.215 - 229.

Utaberta, N., Hassanpour, B., Che Ani, A.I. and Surat, M. (2011). Reconstructing the Idea of Critique Session in Architecture Studio. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences 18, s. 94-102.